Gutfeld on the Times being upset about their exposed tweets

Gutfeld on the Times being upset about their exposed tweets


>>Greg: ARE YOU TALKING TO ME BEFORE THE MONOLOGUE? ALL RIGHT. “THE NEW YORK TIMES” IS OUTRAGED THAT A TRUMP AFFILIATED GROUP IS EXPOSING OLD TWEETS MADE BY A STAFFER. I AGREE WITH THEIR CONCERN, EXCEPT THAT IF THERE JOURNALISTS TO THE SAME THING TO YOU, THEY CALL IT JOURNALISM. YES, THE MEDIA HASN’T THOUGHT TWICE ABOUT USING WORDS TO CANCEL THE CAREERS OF ANYONE OUTSIDE THEIR POLITICAL WORLD. THEY WILL USE JUST ABOUT ANYTHING THAT BY TODAY’S STANDARDS LOOKS PROBLEMATIC. BUT IT’S HYPOCRISY. THEY CALL IT “SCRUTINIZING PEOPLE IN POSITIONS OF POWER. “SEEKING TO HARASS AND EMBARRASS ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH A LEAD NEWS ORGANIZATION. THEY USE IT AND ABUSE THAT AS THEY SEE FIT, PUSHING ON IDEOLOGY THAT HOLDS YOU IN DISDAIN. THIS SHOULD WORRY ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM. BUT WHY? CERTAINLY, JOURNALISTS SHOULD WELCOME TO SCRUTINY. OR IS THIS THE KIND OF POWER THAT THEY HATE? MAYBE IT’S TIME TO GET THE GANDER WHAT THEY’VE BEEN DOING TO THE GOOSE. TARGETING THEM WHAT WITH WH TARGETING THEM WHAT WITH WT TARGETING THEM WHAT WITH WE TARGETING THEM WHAT WITH W’ TARGETING THEM WHAT WITH WE BEEN DOING. MAYBE THAT FORGIVENESS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL OF US, NOT JUST THOSE WORKING AT THE TIMES. YOU KNOW, PETE I HATE THIS STUFF. I HATE GOING AFTER PEOPLE FOR THEIR LITTLE TWEETS AND STUFF THAT THEY DID TEN YEARS AGO. I THINK IT’S GROSS HOW THEY CANCEL PEOPLE. I WOULD RATHER JUST HAVE A BLANKET, LET’S FORGIVE EVERYBODY. BUT WE CAN ONLY GET THERE IF WE DO THIS. IF WE HAVE THE JOURNALISTS FEEL THE PAIN.>>Pete: YOU, I’M WITH YOU ALL THE WAY. WHAT I SAID 5-10 YEARS AGO. YOU LIVE A DIFFERENT LIFE. THERE IS CONTEXT TO EVERYTHING.>>Greg: YOU WERE HORRIBLE BACK THEN.>>Pete: YOU PROBABLY WILL. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT. UNTIL THE DOUBLE STANDARD IS GONE, YOU CAN’T GET TO THAT ZERO SPOT. THE MEDIA, THEY ALWAYS GIVE THEMSELVES A FANCY NICKNAME TO HOLD UP THEIR PILLAR OF SOCIETY. THEY PUT FRAMED POLITICAL ISSUES IN OUR COUNTRY. THE TIMES BASICALLY EXPOSED JOURNALISM. I LOVE THIS EFFORT. SEND IT RIGHT BACK AT THOSE JOURNALISTS WHO STAND ON THEIR MORAL HIGH GROUND AND PRETEND THAT THEY ARE THE JUDGE AND JURY OF EVERYONE ELSE WHO JUMPS ON THEIR WAY.>>Greg: I LOVE IT. YOU KNOW, ONE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEIR MESSAGE IS THAT JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE S JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE O JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE E JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE A JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE O JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE R JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE N JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE T JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE E JOURNALISTS CAN RUIN LIVES, WE R LIVES TO.>>Juan: I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I JUST THINK OF THE CONTEXT HERE IS OFF. I THINK THAT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE IS, ARE YOU HARASSING JOURNALISTS? ARE YOU TRYING TO INTIMIDATE JOURNALISTS QUESTION RIGHT>>Greg: THESE ARE PUBLIC TWEETS. SEE FIVE WELL, THEY ARE PUBLIC. HE’S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. PEOPLE LOOK AT SOMEONE WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. HA, THERE’S A REASON FOR DOING THIS. BUT IF YOU ARE SAYING, LOOK, I THINK THE TIMES EDITOR SAID SOMETHING AWFUL IN A BAR TO A WOMAN. I THINK THAT’S A LEVEL THAT’S INTENDED TO INTIMIDATE AND HARASS.>>Greg: I TOLD YOU I’D STOP.>>Juan: I SAY. C. THIS IS ABOUT HARASSING CONSERVATIVES. THAT’S A LIMITED VIEW OF THE IDEA. YOU HAD A REAL ARGUMENT, WHICH IS WELL, IF IT’S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE, IT’S GOOD FOR THE GANDER. NOW IT’S AN IDEOLOGICAL THING.>>Greg: THE GANDER IS THE CONSERVATIVE, AND THE GOOSE IS A LIBERAL.>>Juan: HE WANTS TO COOK ANOTHER GOOSE.>>Greg: I’M TIRED OF BEING GOOSED. REMEMBER WHEN CNN WENT AFTER THAT WOMAN BECAUSE SHE RETWEETED A RUSSIAN BOT? HE HAD A MEME WITH THAT WAS PUSHING AROUND.>>Dana: THE GUY LOST HIS JOB.>>Greg: YEAH, THE GUY LOST HIS JOB.>>Emily: THE FREE PRESS, THE CONCEPT OF IT, ABSOLUTELY IS SACRED. SO SHOULD NEUTRALITY. SO IS CREDIBILITY. WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE, BECAUSE WHY SHOULD I TAKE AS CREDIBLE OR NEUTRAL, THE SENIOR EDITOR WHO SENT OUT ANTI-SEMITIC TWEETS? I WAS SO UNCOMFORTABLE READING THIS. FOR ME, I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANY ROOM FOR A LACK OF THAT CULPABILITY, CALLING SOMEONE OUT. IT’S NOT HARASSMENT IF YOU ARE SHOWING SOMEONE WHAT THEY DID. THEY ARE EXPECTING YOU TO RELY ON THEM TO ACCURATELY COVER OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR POLITICS. TO ME, THAT’S THE DISCONNECT. SEE FIVE I THINK THAT’S FAIR, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT WOULD THEY ARE DOING IS PUTTING OUT JOURNALISM. YOU SHOULD JUDGE THEIR JOURNALISM OR JOURNALISM OR SO.>>Greg: THAT SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE, DANA. CORRECT?>>Dana: CORRECT.>>Greg: THANK YOU.>>Dana: EVERYONE GETS A CHOICE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO PUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THINK ABOUT IT. IF YOU DECIDE, YOU CAN DECIDE TO HAVE SOMETHING ON TWITTER OR FACEBOOK OR WHATEVER THAT DOESN’T HAVE TO DO WITH VOICING YOUR OPINION THAT ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND HURT YOU LATER. YOU CAN PROMOTE THINGS, RETWEET FUNNY THINGS. YOU DON’T HAVE TO ALWAYS COMMENT ON EVERY –>>Greg: BUT THE THING IS, WHAT GOT THIS GUY INTO TROUBLE AND WHAT GETS EVERYONE INTO TROUBLE IS EDGY HUMOR. THE WHOLE POINT OF IT BEING OFFENSIVE IS –>>Dana: BUT PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR ENTIRE LIVELIHOODS. THAT’S WHEN I SAY, REMEMBER THE WOMAN WHO WAS FROM TENNESSEE. A CONGRESSWOMAN. SHE COMMENTED THAT SHE THOUGHT THAT THE DAUGHTERS OF OBAMA, THEIR OUTFITS WERE NOT

Author:

100 thoughts on “Gutfeld on the Times being upset about their exposed tweets”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *